Date of filing: 15.06.2017 Date of disposal: 29.06.2018
Complainant: Miss Pritikana Bhandari, D/o. Mr. Mrinal Bhandari, Village: Subhaspally, Suri, District: Birbhum, Pin – 713 101.
- V E R S U S -
Opposite Party: 1. Sarv Shiksha Charitable Trust, represented by its Director Mr. Ramananda Jha, S/o. Radhakant Jha, 60, B. B. Ghosh Road, Jail Khana More, Barddhaman Arcade Building (5th Floor), PO. & PS. & Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101 at present residing at Lakshmipur College Road, Burdwan, PIN – 713 101.
2. Secretary, Sarv Shiksha Charitable Trust, 60, B. B. Ghosh Road, Jail Khana More, Barddhaman Arcade Building (5th Floor), PO. & PS. & Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 101.
Present:
Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Ray).
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Nivedita Ghosh.
Hon’ble Member: Dr. Tapan Kumar Tripathy.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Juin Dutta Chakraborty & Moumita Bhattacharjee (Haldar).
Appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1&2: None (ex parte).
J U D G E M E N T
This is a case u/S. 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 directing an award of Rs. 63,000=00 along with interest @18% p.a., to pay Rs. 2,00,000=00 for professional loss and mental pain and agony and to pay Rs. 15,000=00 towards litigation cost.
The complainant’s case in short is that she had an agreement on 08.10.2014 with OP-2 where the Ops agreed to arrange for issuance of a B. Ed. Regular course certificate from Andhra Pradesh, NCTE approved college. For that the complainant paid Rs. 63,000=00 to the Ops & received a receipt for that. According to that agreement, it was the duty of the respondent authority to admit the students in their respective educational institution with NCTE approved college; otherwise, the company will refund the whole amount. But here the respondent authority failed to comply the condition after receiving all the money from the complainant. Although the complainant got admission in an educational institution with NCTE approved and finished the B. Ed. Course, the authority failed to issue the B. Ed. Certificate to the complainant. In the meantime, the complainant knocked the authority several times for the certificate but failed to get any positive reply. The complainant also states that an advocate, namely, Swapan Kumar Banerjee issued a letter dated 31.12.2016 to the company informing her that due to pendency of a criminal case against one Dr. Atul Yadav of Jai Murti College, Nagla Bala, Shirsaganj, District: Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh, 205151, the respondent authorities are unable to comply the conditions stated in the said agreement what was surprising here to the complainant that she was in no way connected with Dr. Atul Yadav. She visited the office of the Ops with the request of refund her money along with 18% interest per annum as she did not receive the certificate even after two (2) years of the agreement, but it bore no fruit.
In this case the Ops did not appear or filed written version to contest the case. After admitting the case notices were sent to the OP-1&2 but the said notices returned unserved with postal remark “left”. Thereafter, again fresh steps were taken by the complainant for sending notices upon the OP-1&2. Again notices were sent to the OP-1&2, but the said two notices neither returned unserved before this Forum nor do the Ops appear to contest the case. Thereafter, on prayer of the complainant summons were issued through paper publication. But the Ops did not appear to contest the case. Hence, the case was heard ex parte.
Decision with reasons:
To prove the case the complainant has filed evidence-on-affidavit along with some documents.
The complainant stated in his petition of complaint clearly in Paragraph 5 that, she got admitted in the institution which is NCTE approved and finished the B.Ed. course. She deposited the entire money Rs. 63,000=00 as per terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreement. But she alleges that the Ops failed to issue B. Ed. Certificate to the complainant. Therefore, she files this complaint praying for direction upon the Ops to pay the entire amount of Rs. 63,000=00 with interest along with compensation for damages and litigation cost.
After hearing from the side of the complainant and in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Maharashi Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaur (2010) II SCC 159 wherein Hon’ble Court placing reliance on earlier judgements has categorically held that ‘education is not a commodity. Educational institutions are not providing any kind of service; therefore, in matter of admission, fees, etc., there cannot be a question of deficiency of service. Such matters cannot be entertained by the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986’.
Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, as the complainant after getting admission in the institution, finishing the course depositing the entire amount, her grievance against the institution cannot be entertained by this Ld. Forum. Therefore, we are constrained to pass any order giving relief to the complainant in this present complaint. In result the case fails. C.F. paid is correct.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the Consumer Complaint being No. 94/2017 be and the same is dismissed ex parte against the Ops without any cost.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me: (Jayanti Maitra (Ray)
President
(Jayanti Maitra (Ray) DCDRF, Burdwan
President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Tapan Kumar Tripathy) (Nivedita Ghosh)
Member Member
DCDRF, BurdwanDCDRF, Burdwan
